Teresa Aguirre v. State of California
19-16687
9th Cir.Jan 14, 2021Background:
- Teresa Aguirre sued the California Employment Development Department (EDD) and two managers alleging interference with FMLA/CFRA leave after a jury trial; the district court ruled for defendants and denied Aguirre’s renewed JMOL; appeal to the Ninth Circuit followed.
- Aguirre had authorized morning FMLA leave but was told she must return to work at the Marysville office after leave and EDD expected a midday start time; Aguirre proposed a noon start despite a long commute from her home.
- Aguirre claimed the combination of the changed work location and start time made it physically impossible to return on time and thus constituted FMLA interference.
- She also argued EDD failed to designate/notify that her travel time between home and Marysville was FMLA-protected and that EDD’s questions about alternate caregivers discouraged her use of FMLA leave.
- The jury found no FMLA interference on these theories; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of renewed JMOL de novo and affirmed the judgment.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directing Aguirre to report in Marysville by 12:30 p.m. (location + start-time change) unlawfully interfered with FMLA rights | The combined change made timely return physically impossible and thus was interference as a matter of law | Restoring employee to original worksite is not adverse; Aguirre could have requested a different leave schedule and imposed the timing on herself | No interference; factual dispute for jury, substantial evidence supports verdict for defendants |
| Whether failure to designate/notify that commute/travel time was FMLA-protected constituted interference | EDD’s failure to designate travel time denied protections for leave-related travel | Employer had no duty to designate travel time when employee did not request leave for travel and was not absent or late | No interference; no travel-time leave was taken/requested, so no duty to designate; omission of instruction harmless |
| Whether inquiries about alternate caregivers discouraged or interfered with FMLA use | Questions about alternate caregivers amounted to discouragement and interference | Inquiry into alternatives does not, by itself, discourage; comments could be interpreted as assistance | No interference; substantial evidence supported jury finding that inquiries did not discourage FMLA use |
| Whether omission of a jury instruction that travel time was FMLA-protected was reversible error | Omission could have affected jury’s finding on designation/notice | Any error was more probably than not harmless given the record and jury verdict | Harmless error (if error at all); affirmance stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2014) (defines FMLA interference and explains risk of forcing leave on an unwilling employee)
- Caballero v. City of Concord, 956 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1992) (harmless-error standard for omitted jury instructions)
- Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting an open question about Escriba’s summary-judgment review; cited but not controlling here)